No1 Volume 4 Biomechanics Newsletter January 2004 Facts. Did you know that... true with one important addition: rowers need a good support to push their bodies forward. Emphasis on push 9 …coordination of the handle/gate and foot- or pull (rower’s or boat acceleration) changes four stretcher forces during the drive phase is not as times during the drive phase: simple as it appeared to be from the first glance? • First, rowers have to push to accelerate their Below are typical graphs of biomechanical body mass and decelerate the boat, because they have to change direction of their movement from the stern to parameters in M1x together with micro-phases of bow at catch (D1 – D2). The quicker these micro- the stroke cycle (D1-D6 drive, R1-R3 recovery): phases, the better. Force (N) Gate • Then, during the first pull phase rowers Stretcher accelerate the boat to create faster moving support on the foot-stretcher to further accelerate their bodies. This micro-phase D3 initial boat acceleration is extremely important for performing effective drive phase. In some crews Acceleration (m/s2) this phase can absent. Fast increasing of the handle force is the main condition of its presence.

` Boat • During D4 rowers push the stretcher again to Rower accelerate themselves and accumulate the main part of System kinetic energy. Effectiveness of this phase depends on amount of gained boat speed during the previous D2 Vertical Angle and fast powerful legs drive. Boat Speed • The final boat acceleration micro-phases D5 and D6 utilize more pull by means of trunk and arms ` work. Forces and total system acceleration decrease during this phase and rower’s acceleration become negative transferring kinetic energy to the boat. This push-pull-push-pull coordination during the Velocity (m/s) drive requires significant coordination and “boat feel” from rowers. Legs Trunk Ideas. What if... Arms Handle ? …we correlate above facts with specifics of Time rowing technique, which can be found in some top R2 R3 D1 D2 D3 D4 D5 D6 R1 R2 rowers? Famous coach Marty Aitken expressed a There are six guess that “grabbing the arms” at the beginning of micro-phases in the the drive can help more effective initial boat drive phase: D1 blade acceleration during D3. This “arms grabbing” insertion, D2 initial Gate generally considered as a technical mistake by Stretcher rower’s acceleration, D3 initial boat majority of rowing coaches, but it can be found in acceleration, D4 the technique of such a great rowers as Steven D2 D3 D4 D5 main rower’s Redgrave, and other Olympic and acceleration, D5 the World champions. I think that this guess is correct main boat acceleration, D6 blade extraction. and “arms grabbing” helps them to increase the The main rules of interaction between the rower handle force quicker and create faster moving and boat masses are: more push (higher foot-stretcher support on the stretcher. However, some other force, legs work) means greater acceleration of the great rowers manage to do initial boat acceleration rower’s mass; more pull (higher handle/gate force, without “arms grabbing”. upper body work) means greater boat acceleration. In previous publications (RBN 6,11/2002) we have Contact Us: emphasized the importance of the rower’s mass ©2003 Dr. Valery Kleshnev, AIS/Biomechanics acceleration, which determines amount of kinetic tel. (+61 2) 6214 1659, (m) 0413 223 290, fax: 6214 1593 energy accumulated during the drive and, hence, e-mail: [email protected] average speed of the rowers-boat system. This remains No2 Volume 4 Rowing Biomechanics Newsletter February 2004 and 7.1 m/s2), but much quicker increase Facts. Did you know that... afterwards. 9 … increasing the force faster at catch is Boat Velocity very important for achieving efficient rowing technique? Below are force curves (as a ratio to body mass) of two crews, where the crew 1 increases the force much quicker than the crew 2, 1 but crew 1 has relatively lower maximal (7.27 and 2 6 8.84 N/kg, correspondingly) and average (3.84 and 4.09 N/kg) force application: Boat Acceleration Force/Body mass (N/kg) 1 2 Driv e 1 2 7 This creates faster moving support on the 1 stretcher and helps to accelerate rower’s centre of It is also important, that the first crew increases mass (RBN 1/2004): the force by means of faster leg drive, good connection with the trunk work and more Row er's CM Velocity horizontal and shallower blade path: Legs 1 Velocity 2 1 2 8 Row er's CM 1 Acceleration 2 2 Trunk 1 Velocity 2

9 We can figure out three main reasons of higher efficiency and better performance of the first crew: 3 • Higher power production due to higher Vertical Angle (deg) handle speed and in spite of lower force application (4.06 and 3.83 W/kg, 5.6% difference equal to 6s gain over 2000m); • Lower fluctuations of the boat speed 1 (deviations were 0.70 and 0.72 m/s), which cause 2 Hor. Angle (%) 4 higher boat velocity efficiency (98.17% and As the consequence, the handle velocity of the 97.64%, 2s faster over 2000m); first crew increases at catch up to higher value and • Lower inertial losses caused by lower maintain it longer during the drive: fluctuations of the rower’s CM speed (9.4% and Handle Velocity (m/s) 11.4%, 2s faster over 2000m). 1 Finally, the overall gain due to better technique 2 of the first crew was approximately 10s over 2000, which was nearly equal to the margin between two crews in the race. 5 Contact Us: The boat speed and acceleration curves of the ©2003 Dr. Valery Kleshnev first crew have deeper negative peak at catch (7.6 [email protected] (m) +61(0)413 223 290 No3 Volume 4 Rowing Biomechanics Newsletter March 2004 The second crew has linear DPS trend, but the Ideas. What if... speed trend bends down. …you use the shape of the DPS (Distance With the third crew both DPS and speed trends are per Stroke) trend as a measure of stability of the concave at the bottom. This crew starts decreasing the force application and stroke length at different boat speed, when the stroke rate increases higher than certain value (here it is 32 str/min). rates? Importantly, you don’t need any Below are corresponding force-angle curves of biomechanical equipment to find it out. these three crews. You can see that the first crew To do this, firstly, you should perform a step test managed to increase average force significantly at high with increasing stroke rate. You need to measure the rates, providing nearly constant stroke length. Usually, rate very accurately or, better, count number of strokes good crews increase force more during the first half of during whole piece and then derive the rate. the drive and drop it down a little during the second Secondly, you need to input the data into a half. It is interesting that this ability correlates with the spreadsheet (e.g. Microsoft Excel) and plot the earliest position of peak force. boat speed and DPS relative to the stroke rate. The second crew maintains nearly constant nd Finally, add the 2 order polynomial trend forces, but decrease stroke length at high rate. The lines using right click and local menu. Set desired third crew decreases significantly both stroke “Forecast” in “Format Trendline-Options”. length and force application. DPS Boat Speed Force Stroke Rate: 22 24 26 28 35

Rate (str/min) Angle 20 25 30 35 40 1 1 DPS Boat Speed Force Stroke Rate: 22 25 29 34

Rate (str/min) Angle 20 25 30 35 40 2 2 DPS Boat Speed Force Stroke Rate: 26 27 29 33

Rate (str/min) Angle 20 25 30 35 40 3 3 In the figures above there are three examples of You can practice this method at different the DPS and boat speed trends for different crews. distances and comparing the trends, which brings The first crew increases the boat speed with the the endurance factor into analysis. Just don’t let stroke rate nearly linearly. The DPS trend is rowers cheat applying less force at lower rate ☺. concave at the top. It always goes down in all crews because the cycle time shortens at higher Contact Us: rate and boat travels shorter distance per cycle. ©2004 Dr. Valery Kleshnev [email protected] (m) +61(0)413 223 290 No4 Volume 4 Rowing Biomechanics Newsletter April 2004 at the blade at desired depth, then contact the Ideas. What if... second button with the gate and tighten it. Because 9 …you use simple “gadgetry” to give of the big leverage, the force at the second button feedback on some biomechanical parameters and is quite high, so it makes sense to fix it with to correct them in a desired direction? Below are screws to the sleeve, when you find its optimal three examples of some “gadgetry”: position. 1. You can use small plastic straw mounted on the As a positive side effect, the second button will stern of the boat to monitor instantaneous boat prevent pulling the oar inward, which happens in speed. The straw should be bent around the stern some rowers at the end of the drive. and fixed with some tape in such a way that under- 3. Another very simple gadget is a piece of string, water end is horizontal and above-water end is which can be used for synchronization of the vertical. rowers’ movements in crew boats. The height of the water jet is proportional to You can connect sliding seats of two or more the square of instantaneous boat velocity. This rowers with the string, which will give you means that the height increases four times, when synchronization of the legs movements. the boat speed increases twice. It is difficult to give Obviously, the length of the string must be equal a table of corresponding values because they to the distance between riggers. You can attach a depend on geometry of the straw. You can small rigger to the side of the seat, which prevents calibrate the jet, when towing the boat, if you need. catching the string on the stretcher or the rower’s You can make the straw longer and place its legs. vertical end on a rigger, which allows it to be seen You can connect the rowers’ trunks at shoulder by all crew members. A small colorful ruler can level, which helps to synchronize the body swing. help to evaluate the boat speed. The simplest way is to use just safety pin to attach The best crews have increasing boat speed the string to the rower’s cloth. In this case, subtract during the drive phase, as we shown it in the RBN the trunk depth from the length of the rope. 2/2004. Therefore, it is important to see the With some creativity you can do it even with increasing of the height of the water jet during the oars! Connect them together at the middle of drive, instead of maintaining it at a constant level. inboard or outboard and you will see The picture of the straw-jet below was kindly synchronization at the oar angles. You can attach a supplied by Australian coach Nick Garratt, who little wire loops to the oar shaft with a tape. Then successfully uses this gadget. hook the string to one oar, wrap it around the shaft and hook to the other one. General recommendations for using these gadgets are: Inboard 9 The main target is giving feedback to the athletes and coach and correction of the rowers Outboard technique that assume changes in motor pattern in the brain; 9 Coach and rowers must clearly understand 1) 2) what they use a gadget for, what problems it’ll

help to fix and what can be the side effects; 2. You can use the second button on the oar sleeve 9 Quite often you can fix one thing, but break to control depth of the blade in the water another one (or two, or more); and make the drive more horizontal. The second 9 Do not try to replace the rowers’ motor pattern button should be mounted on the outboard part of with their habit to use the gadget, i.e. rowers the sleeve: should maintain achieved improvements after When the oar blade goes down during the the gadgets removal. drive, the top of the original button pushes the gate We would greatly appreciate any information from inside and the bottom of the sleeve slides about other gadgets, which you use in rowing. inward the gate. The second button prevents this sliding at certain point and, therefore, limits the Contact Us: maximal depth of the blade in the water. ©2004 Dr. Valery Kleshnev Position the second button in the following [email protected] (m) +61(0)413 223 290 way: Level the boat with rowers on water and put No 5 Volume 4 Rowing Biomechanics Newsletter May 2004 but then the handle speed was 0.1m/s slower and Facts. Did you know that... the force is similar to the normal gearing. The 9 …changing the gearing ratio is the simplest drive time appeared to be 0.06s longer with method of speed and power drilling in rowing? heavier gearing. The best way is to vary outboard oar length, Peak power was similar during the normal and because in this case you do not need to change lighter gearing, although achieved earlier during geometry of the rower’s movements. Rowing with the lighter gearing. Peak power was lower during shortened outboard will make the gearing ratio the heavier gearing, but average rowing power was lighter and increase the speed of the drive, but the highest (495W), because of longer drive time. decrease force application. On the contrary, It was lower during the lighter gearing (491W) and increasing of the outboard will make the gearing the lowest during the normal gearing (481W). heavier and change force/velocity ratio in other Ideas. What if... direction. Below are graphs of the handle force, velocity 9 …: In RBN 4 and 5/2001 some examples and power during rowing (single scull) with of speed and force drills were described with normal gearing (88cm inboard, 290cm oar length), regards to their biomechanical features. Here are lighter (3cm shorter outboard) and heavier gearing some more examples of these sorts of drills. (3cm longer outboard). Stroke rate was 32- Power drills: 33str/mim. You can increase load on desired body 1000 segment by means of applying extra mass to a Handle Force (N) Normal specific part of the rower-boat-oars system: 800 Lighter Heavier 9 If you attach some extra weight onto the 600 boat, you’ll increase the load to the legs.

400 9 To increase load on the trunk, you can use sand-bags attached to the rower’s shoulders. 200 Time Alternatively, you can make a jacket with pockets 0 on the shoulders and fill them with sand. This drill is very useful for developing a good drive finish 3 Handle Velocity (m/s) Normal and body return. Lighter 2 9 If you want to emphasise arms work and Heav ier oar handling, you can attached extra mass to the 1 oar. Put the extra mass on both inboard and Time outboard maintaining balance of the oar. 0 Preserving of the rowing kinematical structure is a general rule for these drills. Therefore, the -1 added mass must not be higher than 4-5% of the 2000 Handle Power (W) Normal body weight. Lighter Speed drills. 1500 Heavier Towing with speed boat has already been described (4/2001). This is alternative method: 1000 9 Rowing in faster boats (8+, 4x) is widely

500 used as a very good speed drill for small boats (2-, Time 1x). However, some coaches used quite interesting 0 modifications of this method. They put sculling

If we compare the normal and light gearing, riggers on the bow seats of the and make the then the main difference in the force curves is sculler row at a very fast speed. Alternatively, two during the second half of the drive, where the force sweep seats can be set up on a bow of the quad. was about 40N less with lighter gearing. On the These combinations could be useful in small clubs, contrary, handle velocity was about 0.2m/s higher where there are not enough rowers or scullers to during the first half, although it was the same make big boats. “after the pin”. These changes were opposite Contact Us: during the heavier gearing. The rower apply about ©2004 Dr. Valery Kleshnev 40N higher force at the same speed “before pin”, [email protected] (m) +61(0)413 223 290 Volume 4 No 6 Rowing Biomechanics Newsletter June 2004 be determined accurately and easily. The position Facts. Did you know that... of the centre of pressure on the blade affected by 9 …the method of power calculation in the blade hydrodynamics, boat speed and oar angle rowing is quite complicated issue? It is very and also can’t be determined easily. important because power production is the main 3. Rower’s power. In fact, the rower is the characteristic of a rower’s performance and the only source of mechanical energy in rowing. The main component for calculation of the rowing rower applies force (i.e. power) only at two points: efficiency. We can calculate power in rowing in the handle and the foot-stretcher. The fulcrum here three ways: is the rower’s centre of mass (CM): 1. Traditional method of the power Phandle calculation in rowing is based on the assumption that the rower applies power to the handle only. Oar works as a lever with a pivot point (fulcrum) Pfoot. CM - Fulcrum at the pin: w The power can be calculated as a sum of the Fhandle handle and foot-stretcher powers and each of them Rin Fulcrum equates to a scalar product of correspondent force and velocity vectors: In this case power equates to a product of the P = Ph + Pf = Fh Vh + Ff Vf (4) torque τ and angular velocity ω, or to a product of 9 Graphs below show the power calculated the force applied to the handle Fh and the linear using all three methods, and also their velocity of the handle Vh: components: propulsive, waste, handle and foot- P = τ ω = (τ / Rin) (ω Rin) = Fh Vh (1) stretcher powers (M1x, rate 32str\min) , where Rin is the inboard length. To be more 2200 Power (W) Ptraditional Pprop+Pw. accurate, Rin is the distance from the pin (+2cm = 1800 Prower half of the gate width) to the middle of the handle Pfoot. 1400 Phandle (-6cm for sculling, -15cm for sweep). Ppropuls. 1000 2. Propulsive-waste power. Why we assume Pwaste 600 that the pin is the fulcrum? In fact, pin moves with Time the boat with quite irregular acceleration. 200 -200 Therefore, the boat is not an inertial reference frame in Newton mechanics. If we set the You can see a very good correspondence reference frame based on Earth (or water), we will between the traditional and the propulsive-waste find the oar fulcrum somewhere close to the blade: power curves. The average rowing powers were P1 = 462.9W, P2 = 465.5W and P3 = 494.4W. The Pwaste reason of the difference between the first two and CM the rower’s power is that the last includes inertial Fulcrum Pprop. component, which is necessary to move the boat relative to the rower. In this case inertial losses There are two components of the power here: were 6.4% of the total rower’s power. The blade propulsive power Pprop on the inboard side from propulsive efficiency equates to a ratio of the the fulcrum and waste power Pwaste on the blade propulsive to the total power, which was 80.4% in side. Propulsive power equates to the scalar this case. The handle/foot-stretcher power ratio product of the force vector acting on the rower- was 60%/40% in this case. It depends on the shape boat system Fprop and velocity of the system of the force curve: foot-stretcher share increases at centre of mass Vcm: Pprop = Fprop Vcm (2) force emphasis at catch. Waste power equates to the scalar product of References the blade force vector Fblade and velocity of the Kleshnev V. 2000. Power in rowing. Proceedings of centre of pressure on the blade (slippage of the XVIII Congress of ISBS, (2) Chinese University of Hong blade through the water) Vslip. Kong, 662-666 Pwaste = Fblade Vslip (3) Contact Us: This method is not very practical, because velocity of the system centre of mass Vcm can not ©2004 Dr. Valery Kleshnev [email protected] (m) +61(0)413 223 290 Volume 4 No 7 Rowing Biomechanics Newsletter July 2004 The graphs below show foot-stretcher forces, Questions and Answers: measured simultaneously with the hull speed: Q: Stuart Wilson of Jeff Sykes & Associates Foot-stretcher Force (N) 20 asked: Is that true that “…the peak speed of the 1000 26 Drive 30 hull is just before the catch, not as previously 800 35 thought, just after the finish?” 600 37 A: In fact, this depends on the stroke rate. 400 Below are typical graphs of the hull speed at 200 Angle 0 different stroke rates (M1x, X-axis is the oar -200 angle): Catch Recovery -400 Release Hull velocity rel. average (m/s) We assume positive force acts towards the Recovery 1.0 Release stern (push) and negative acts towards the bow 0.5 (pull). At lower rating the pull force was about 0.0 50N that was lower than the drag force (60N). At 20 -0.5 Angle the higher rating the pull force exceeds 200N and 26 overcomes the even higher drag force (100N). This -1.0 30 Drive 35 creates acceleration of the hull during recovery and Catch -1.5 37 increasing of the hull speed. You can see that at low rate 20 str/min (pink Above acceleration increases fluctuations of line) the old thought is true. However, the hull the hull speed and create excessive energy losses. speed increases through recovery at higher stroke The measure of fluctuations is a variation of the rates. The higher the rate, the closer the peak speed hull speed (ratio of its standard deviation to the to the catch. average). Generally, the variation increases from The reason for this phenomenon is in 11.7% at the stroke rate 20 up to 13.7% at the rate interaction of the rower’s and the boat masses. The 40. This decreases the efficiency of the boat speed following graphs show velocities of the hull, the (ratio of the actual propulsive power to the rower’s centre of mass (CM) and the system CM minimal required for the same average speed) from (rower + hull + oars) at stroke rates 20 and 37: 96.25% down to 94.79%. This difference (1.5s over 2000m) is quite small compare to the 2 Velocity rel. Average (m/s) Rate 20 difference in the speed between 20 and 40 str/min. 1 What can we do to decrease the losses even 0 more? The obvious solution is to minimize the Release Recovery foot-stretcher pull and make the hull speed -1 Recovery Hull smoother during recovery. There are two methods Drive Rower CM -2 Catch System CM of doing this: 1. Avoid too fast body return at the finish of 1 Velocity rel. Average (m/s) Rate 37 the drive. This method is well described mathematically in (1). From this point, Australian 0 rowing style looks very efficient. Release Recovery 2. Increase the recovery time that means -1 Recovery shortening the drive time at the same stroke rate Drive Hull Rower CM and decreasing the rhythm value (RBN 2003/03). -2 Catch System CM Crews with a fast dynamic drive have more time

In both cases, the peak velocity of the system for the recovery phase and muscles relaxation, and CM happens at the end of the drive, when the can make boat run more evenly. propulsive force became lower then drags force References 1. Sanderson, B., Martindale, W. (1986). Towards acting on the hull. At the higher rate the rower’s optimizing rowing technique. Medicine and science in sports CM velocity decreases much faster during and exercise, 18, 454-468. recovery, but boat speed increases. This means the Contact Us: transmission of the kinetic energy from the rower’s mass is to the hull. This happens by means of more ©2004 Dr. Valery Kleshnev active pull through the foot-stretcher. [email protected] (m) +61(0)413 223 290 Volume 4 No 8 Rowing Biomechanics Newsletter August 2004 9 The highest variation of the boat speed was News recorded in GER M2-, M8+ and M4x (4.5-4.5%). The Games of XXVIII Olympiad have just Among the winners the most uneven boat speed finished in Athens. This Greatest Celebration of was noticed in GBR M4-(3.52%), USA M8+ Humanity was really marvelous and unforgettable. (3.32%) and DEN LM4- (3.27%). This sort of We all witnessed a very tough competition for variation caused losses about 0.6s over 2000m race medals. Congratulations to all the winners! We (RBN 2003/12). wish the unsuccessful crews success with goals 9 …we can suspect that the wind didn’t blow next time and hope that biomechanics can be a uniformly during the races at Schinias rowing little help to them. course, which affect the race strategy. Analysis of the race tactics can be useful, because it shows Facts. Did you know that... where the winners gain their advantage 9 …the average race strategy of the winners RELATIVE to other competitors. of the Athens Olympic games was: 2.9%, -1.0%, - The table below shows a count of each of 12 1.6%, -0.1%. This is a slightly different from tactics in each place-takers category. Let us average over the last 12 years 3.1%, -1.1%, -1.8%, remember that the first number in the tactics -0.1%. The two charts below show the strategy of represents the fastest 500m piece, and the second each winning crew: is the slowest section RELATIVE average speed of all competitors in the race. (RBN 2003/07) 5% Velocity / 1 W1x GER 1 M1x NOR Place 4% Crew Average (%) 1 W2- ROM 1 M2- AUS Tactics 1st 2nd 3rd 4th 5th 6th Total 3% 1 W2x NZL 1 M2x FRA 1-2 1 1 2% 1 M4- GBR 1-3 1 2 4 7 1% 1-4 1 1 6 4 5 17 0% 2-1 1 1 2 1234 -1% 2-3 1 1 2 -2% 2-4 1 1 3 5 -3% 3-1 1 3 1 2 7 -4% 3-2 1 1 2 1 5 3-4 2 1 1 1 5 5% Velocity / 1 LW2x ROM 1 LM2x POL 4-1 2 4 6 1 2 15 4% Crew Average (%) 1 LM4- DEN 1 W4x GER 4-2 2 3 3 2 1 11 1 M4x RUS 1 W8+ ROM 3% 4-3 1 3 1 2 7 1 M8+ USA 2% Total 14 14 14 14 14 14 84 1% It is interesting that the winners used all tactics 0% except 1-4, which was previously the most popular 1234 -1% over the last 12 years. Majority of the winners (9 -2% out of 14) got their advantage over the second half -3% of the race. This could be evidence of very even -4% level of competitors, where nobody can be You can see that majority of the winners made suppressed psychologically at the start of the race their first 500m 3-5% faster than average speed and all crews are prepared to fight until the finish. over 2000m. However, there were four outliers: 10 silver and 10 bronze medalists out of 14 both singles, Romanian LW2x and W8+ began the gained advantage over the final section (tactics 4- race much slower than other winners. The most 1, 4-2, 4-3), while only five winners did the same. unusual strategy was used by German W1x: -1.0%, This confirms our previous conclusion: “If a crew -1.3%, 0.7%, 1.7%, which makes the second half saves energy for the last 500m, then they have 5.1s faster than the first one. more chances to win a medal, but fewer chances to 9 …the lowest variation of the boat speed win a gold medal.” was shown by Bulgarian and Estonian M1x: 0.70% and 0.71% respectively. Among the Contact Us: winners the most even boat speed was achieved by ©2004 Dr. Valery Kleshnev ROM LW2x (0.87%), NOR M1x (1.21%) and [email protected] (m) +61(0)413 223 290 GER W1x (1.42%).

Appendix 1 of the Rowing Biomechanics Newsletter 8(4), August 2004. Race strategy and tactics in rowing Finals A in the XXVIII Olympic Games in Athens.

W1x 1:48 500 m (min:sec) Strategy Var. Tactics 1:50 1 GER -1.0% -1.3% 0.7% 1.7% 1.42% 4-1 1:52 2 BLR 0.8% -1.9% -0.8% 2.0% 1.76% 4-1 1:54 3 BUL 1.4% -2.3% 0.1% 0.9% 1.64% 4-2 1:56 4 CZE 2.5% -1.8% -0.7% 0.2% 1.80% 1-3 1:58 1 W1x GER 2 W1x BLR 5 NZL 2.8% -1.7% 0.0% -0.9% 1.97% 1-4 2:00 3 W1x BUL 4 W1x CZE 5 W1x NZL 6 W1x ESP 6 ESP 3.2% 0.8% -1.2% -2.7% 2.55% 2-4

M1x 1:40 500 m (min:sec) Strategy Var. Tactics 1:42 1 NOR 0.5% -1.3% -0.7% 1.4% 1.21% 4-1 1:44 2 EST 0.2% -0.6% 0.9% -0.5% 0.71% 3-1 3 BUL 0.8% -0.8% -0.4% 0.4% 0.70% 4-1 1:45 4 ARG 2.9% -2.3% -0.3% -0.2% 2.14% 4-2 1:47 1 M1x NOR 2 M1x EST 5 CZE 4.6% -0.8% 0.9% -4.4% 3.73% 1-4 1:49 3 M1x BUL 4 M1x ARG 5 M1x CZE 6 M1x BEL 6 BEL 4.1% 0.0% 0.2% -3.9% 3.29% 1-4

W2- 1:44 500 m (min:sec) Strategy Var. Tactics 1:46 1 ROM 2.5% 1.0% -1.7% -1.7% 2.07% 2-1 1:47 2 GBR 2.5% -1.2% -2.6% 1.4% 2.33% 4-2 1:49 3 BLR 3.1% -0.2% -2.5% -0.3% 2.31% 4-1 1:51 4 CAN 4.3% 0.7% -1.9% -2.8% 3.21% 1-4 1 W2- ROM 2 W2- GBR 5 GER 4.9% 0.5% -3.3% -1.8% 3.58% 1-3 1:52 3 W2- BLR 4 W2- CAN 5 W2- GER 6 W2- NZL 6 NZL 3.7% -0.2% -2.0% -1.3% 2.53% 3-2

M2- 1:35 500 m (min:sec) Strategy Var. Tactics 1 AUS 3.2% -1.7% -1.4% 0.0% 2.22% 1-2 1:39 2 CRO 2.7% -1.9% -1.5% 0.9% 2.18% 4-2 3 RSA 1.5% -1.7% -1.4% 1.7% 1.83% 4-1 4 NZL 2.1% -3.7% 0.4% 1.5% 2.59% 3-2 1:43 1 M2- AUS 2 M2- CRO 5 SCG 2.2% 1.3% -3.4% 0.0% 2.44% 2-3 3 M2- RSA 4 M2- NZL 5 M2- SCG 6 M2- GER 6 GER 5.7% 1.1% -1.2% -5.0% 4.45% 1-4

W2x 1:41 500 m (min:sec) 1 W2x NZL 2 W2x GER Strategy Var. Tactics 3 W2x GBR 4 W2x BUL 1 NZL 4.5% -0.7% -1.2% -2.4% 3.05% 3-4 5 W2x ROM 6 W2x UKR 1:45 2 GER 3.0% -1.0% -2.5% 0.7% 2.40% 4-1 3 GBR 3.7% -2.0% -0.9% -0.6% 2.50% 3-2 1:50 4 BUL 5.5% -0.2% -2.4% -2.5% 3.74% 1-4 5 ROM 3.6% -1.0% -2.4% 0.0% 2.58% 4-1 6 UKR 6.1% 0.2% -2.8% -3.0% 4.21% 1-4

M2x 1:33 500 m (min:sec) 1 M2x FRA 2 M2x SLO Strategy Var. Tactics 3 M2x ITA 4 M2x EST 1:34 1 FRA 3.9% -1.6% -2.6% 0.6% 2.86% 4-2 5 M2x CZE 6 M2x USA 1:36 2 SLO 4.2% -0.8% -2.0% -1.2% 2.80% 1-4 1:38 3 ITA 6.1% 0.1% -2.9% -2.7% 4.21% 1-4 1:39 4 EST 2.8% -1.9% -2.3% 1.6% 2.50% 4-2 1:41 5 CZE 3.4% -0.5% -2.1% -0.6% 2.36% 3-4 6 USA -2.3% 3.0% -2.5% 2.1% 2.88% 2-1

M4- 1:28 500 m (min:sec) 1 M4- GBR 2 M4- CAN Strategy Var. Tactics 3 M4- ITA 4 M4- AUS 1 GBR 4.3% -2.1% -3.5% 1.6% 3.52% 4-3 1:30 5 M4- NZL 6 M4- POL 1:31 2 CAN 3.8% -2.1% -2.5% 1.0% 2.93% 4-2 1:33 3 ITA 1.8% -0.8% -0.5% -0.4% 1.18% 3-1 1:35 4 AUS 5.0% -2.1% -1.7% -1.0% 3.34% 1-4 1:37 5 NZL 5.4% -1.9% -2.8% -0.2% 3.69% 1-3 6 POL 4.4% -0.5% -1.2% -2.4% 2.97% 2-4 LW2x 1:41 1 LW2x ROM 2 LW2x GER Strategy Var. Tactics 3 LW2x NED 4 LW2x AUS 1 ROM 0.7% -0.5% -0.9% 0.8% 0.87% 3-1 1:43 5 LW2x CHN 6 LW2x POL 2 GER 2.4% -1.0% -3.3% 2.0% 2.69% 4-3 1:45 3 NED 0.5% -0.4% -2.5% 2.5% 2.07% 4-1 1:46 4 AUS 3.7% 0.3% -3.1% -0.7% 2.84% 1-4 1:48 500 m 5 CHN 3.0% -0.7% -3.4% 1.4% 2.77% 1-3 (min:sec) 6 POL 3.1% -1.0% -1.7% -0.3% 2.16% 1-4

LM2x 1:32 1 LM2x POL 2 LM2x FRA Strategy Var. Tactics 3 LM2x GRE 4 LM2x DEN 1 POL 3.9% 0.6% -0.4% -3.8% 3.20% 3-4 1:33 5 LM2x HUN 6 LM2x JPN 2 FRA 3.2% -0.6% -1.9% -0.5% 2.20% 4-1 1:35 3 GRE 3.2% -0.8% -1.9% -0.3% 2.24% 4-2 1:37 4 DEN 4.4% 0.1% -2.2% -2.0% 3.06% 1-4 500 m 5 HUN 3.2% -0.3% -2.3% -0.5% 2.29% 4-3 1:39 (min:sec) 6 JPN 3.5% -0.6% -1.5% -1.1% 2.31% 4-2

LM4- 1:26 1 LM4- DEN 2 LM4- AUS Strategy Var. Tactics 3 LM4- ITA 4 LM4- NED 1 DEN 4.6% -0.8% -3.3% -0.2% 3.27% 1-3 1:28 5 LM4- CAN 6 LM4- IRL 1:30 2 AUS 3.0% -0.8% -1.7% -0.4% 2.05% 3-1 1:32 3 ITA 3.9% -0.7% -1.4% -1.5% 2.59% 3-4 4 NED 2.8% -1.1% -3.2% 1.8% 2.72% 4-1 1:33 500 m 5 CAN 3.2% -0.5% -2.4% -0.2% 2.34% 4-1 1:35 (min:sec) 6 IRL 6.0% -0.1% -1.7% -3.7% 4.17% 1-4

W4x 1:35 1 W4x GER 2 W4x GBR Strategy Var. Tactics 3 W4x UKR 4 W4x AUS 1 GER 2.8% -0.3% -1.3% -1.2% 1.93% 2-4 1:36 5 W4x RUS 6 W4x USA 2 GBR 2.1% -1.3% -1.0% 0.3% 1.56% 4-1 1:38 3 UKR 3.2% -1.1% -2.3% 0.4% 2.36% 4-3 4 AUS 3.7% -0.3% -2.0% -1.2% 2.54% 1-4 1:40 500 m 5 RUS 4.4% -1.5% -2.4% -0.2% 3.00% 1-3 1:42 (min:sec) 6 USA 2.5% 0.0% -0.6% -1.9% 1.82% 3-4

M4x 1:25 1 M4x RUS 2 M4x CZE Strategy Var. Tactics 3 M4x UKR 4 M4x POL 1 RUS 4.0% -2.1% -1.4% -0.2% 2.74% 3-2 1:27 5 M4x GER 6 M4x BLR 1:29 2 CZE 4.5% -2.0% -2.7% 0.5% 3.27% 4-3 1:31 3 UKR 1.7% -2.2% -2.6% 3.4% 2.95% 4-1 1:32 4 POL 4.0% -1.3% -1.2% -1.3% 2.63% 2-4 1:34 500 m 5 GER 6.6% -1.6% -0.5% -3.9% 4.51% 1-4 (min:sec) 6 BLR 2.8% -1.8% -0.9% 0.0% 2.00% 3-1

W8+ 1:32 500 m (min:sec) Strategy Var. Tactics 1 ROM 2.1% -2.3% -1.9% 2.3% 2.50% 4-2 2 USA 2.9% -1.8% -2.5% 1.7% 2.64% 4-3 1:36 3 NED 0.5% -1.6% -1.8% 3.2% 2.34% 4-1 4 CHN 2.1% -3.0% -0.2% 1.3% 2.25% 3-2 1:41 1 W8+ ROM 2 W8+ USA 5 GER 1.8% -0.8% -3.1% 2.2% 2.48% 4-3 3 W8+ NED 4 W8+ CHN 5 W8+ GER 6 W8+ AUS 6 AUS 5.2% 1.6% -1.1% -5.2% 4.37% 2-4

M8+ 1:22 1 M8+ USA 2 M8+ NED Strategy Var. Tactics 3 M8+ AUS 4 M8+ GER 1 USA 4.5% -0.7% -3.5% 0.1% 3.32% 2-3 1:24 5 M8+ CAN 6 M8+ FRA 2 NED 2.8% -3.3% -0.9% 1.6% 2.71% 3-1 1:25 3 AUS 4.2% -2.5% -2.2% 0.8% 3.14% 4-2 1:27 4 GER 5.9% -2.6% -4.1% 1.3% 4.47% 1-3 1:29 5 CAN 6.3% -1.2% -2.0% -2.6% 4.16% 1-4 1:31 500 m (min:sec) 6 FRA 2.9% -1.7% -1.7% 0.6% 2.18% 3-1

Volume 4 No 9 Rowing Biomechanics Newsletter September 2004 We can speculate two different reasons of this Questions and Answers: difference in power. Q: Robert Dauncey from Pembroke College, Firstly, shorter duration of on-water workload Oxford asks: “I was wondering whether the power allowы men to use their strength reserve better, to stroke rate tables you published in January 2002 while women do not have such strength. could be … transferred to the ergo? If not directly, Secondly, this fact corresponds to findings of is there a formula to adjust for the ergo?” Other Ingham et al. (1), where male rowers were 7.7% coaches asked similar questions about evaluation faster than female on ergo, but this difference was of the ergo performance. increased up to 10.9% on water. We can only A: In general, the answer will be “Yes” for guess the reason of this phenomena and further women and “No” for men. This conclusion comes research required to make it clear. from comparative analysis of our on-water data Solutions. and ergo data, which was kindly provided by AIS physiologists Dr. Tony Rice and Gary Slater. The Enclosed is a MS Excel™ spreadsheet that will data represents rowing power at different stroke help you to evaluate the power on ergo at different rates. The samples volumes were: Men/Ergo stroke rates and for athletes with different weight. n=950, Men/Boat n=3200, Women/Ergo n=854, The spreadsheet is built on the basis of above Women/Boat n=2538. The duration of the analysis. You can use both power and/or workload was four minutes on ergo, and 1.5-2 min distance/time data in the worksheet. on-water. We would greatly appreciate your feedback on We assumed that the rowing power P is the worksheet. Also, it would be great if you can proportional to cube root of square of the athlete send us your ergo data, which will help us to weight W (1): P = kW2/3. Relative power k was develop more accurate evaluation method. calculated for each rower as k = P/W2/3. Then, we derived regressions (trends) of dependencies of the Ideas. What if… relative power k on the stroke rate r: …you use above evaluation for building a 2 Men/Ergo k = -0.0106r + 1.3321r - 10.6167 training method, which will help to increase drive Men/Boat k = -0.0124r2 + 1.3933r - 10.0180 2 power of each stroke. This method is similar to Women/Ergo k = -0.0112r + 1.1094r - 6.4277 DPS-assisted on water method (RBN 4/2001), but Women/Boat k = -0.0100r2 + 1.0383r - 5.4343 it is much easier to implement on ergo with Below is the comparison of the trend lines of accurate feedback on power and rate. power on Concept-II ergo and in the boat, derived The idea is to build the power/rate profile for from the above regressions for 86kg man and 72kg each rower and then try to lift it up, that means woman (average weights in the samples): more power for each stroke. 500 Pow er (W) When you input the rower’s weight, stroke rate 450 and power into the attached spread sheet, you can 400 use the “Score” values for evaluation of the 350 rower’s performance at each stroke. If you have low scores at low stroke rate, then you need more 300 strength and muscle volume. If your score decrease 250 Women, Ergo Men, Er go at higher rate, then you need speed qualities in 200 Women, Boat your muscles. Men, Boat 150 Stroke Rate (Str/min) The next step consists in setting desired higher 100 scores and corresponding power for each rating 16 20 24 28 32 36 and attempting to achieve them. Start with lower rate and then move it up. You can see that in women both trends are References represented by virtually the same line. In men the 1. S.A. Ingham, G.P. Whyte, K. Jones, A.M. Nevill. boat trend lays noticeably higher. If we assume the Determinants of 2,000 m rowing ergometer performance on-water power as 100% at each stroke rate, then in elite rowers. Eur J Appl Physiol (2002) 88: 243–246. the corresponding ergo power will be: Contact Us: Rate 16 20 24 28 32 36 40 ©2004 Dr. Valery Kleshnev Men 88% 91% 94% 95% 97% 98% 99% [email protected] (m) +61(0)413 223 290 Women 98% 99% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% Volume 4 No 10 Rowing Biomechanics Newsletter October 2004 that allow quicker placement of the sculls. Inertial Questions and Answers: forces appear to be ineffective on these phases. 9 Q: Ben Stevenson of Richmond RC in On contrary, time of the D3 (initial boat Victoria wrote: “I was very interested by the topics acceleration) has no direct relationship with the of January and February this year… stroke rate. Therefore, its share increases as the I am particularly interested in the D3 phase. drive time decreases and this phase has the most My interpretation of this phase is that it represents significant correlation with the stroke rate. We the time in which the body ‘takes up the strain’ found the trends of D3 shares are non-linear: and the oar flexes etc. The feeling of this micro- 25% D3/Drive (%) Sw eep phase would be the ‘lock’ sensation. As this is 20% Scull wasted energy, and shortens the effective length of 15% the stroke, wouldn’t it be better to use a weaker 10% part of the body to effect this stage (ie arm grabbing)? However wouldn’t this be counteracted 5% Rate (str/min) by the arms letting go once the stronger leg 0% 16 20 24 28 32 36 40 44 pressure comes on, and wouldn’t this then reduce the effectiveness of the strongest drive phase? The D3 share achieves its maximum at the How about other options like extending the stroke rates 32-36 and then goes down, but not shoulder joint before the catch? Or because the disappears. It is 5-6% higher in sculling at low legs are in a relatively weak position at the catch, rates, but the trends coincide at about 15% at the wouldn’t they be a better tool for locking on? rate 40. Don’t think that the longer D3 phase is A related topic to this is how D1-D2 affects better, because its longest values were found in the lock on. At higher rating, the increased poorest crews. Some inefficient crews don’t have forward/back momentum forces the body to take this phase at all. The duration of the D3 must be up the strain during D1-D2, because the legs are optimal at the level of 0.08-0.12s. This means that stopping while the body continues. Does this mean the switching from push into the stretcher during that D3 shortens or disappears at higher ratings?” D2 to pull the handle during D3 and back to push A: We analyzed behavior of the drive micro- during D4 must be present, but it must be done phases at different stroke rates in 538 sweep and quickly. 743 sculling samples. The following table shows Some very successful rowers do D3 using average ratio of each micro-phase to the drive “grabbing” with arms, but we are not saying that time, its standard deviation, minimal and maximal this is the best method. It is inefficient, when arms values, and correlation with the stroke rate: as the weakest part of the body maintain static Phase/ D1 D2 D3 D4 D5 D6 tension from beginning till the end of the drive. Drive (%) Other great crews (Appendix 1) manage to pull Sweep 13.3 11.6 13.7 20.9 28.1 12.5 without “grabbing”, by means of stretching the STD 2.5 3.1 5.3 6.2 7.4 5.3 shoulders at catch and using them together with Min 6.1 4.0 0.0 0.0 11.2 0.5 trunk during D3, exactly as Ben questioned. Max 20.0 20.3 25.0 37.2 46.8 23.5 The next two phases D4 (rower’s acceleration) Corr. 0.13 -0.15 0.43 -0.02 -0.23 0.02 and D5 (boat acceleration) are the longest ones. D4 Scull 10.4 9.8 18.0 24.5 21.8 15.5 has the constant time share in the drive. This is STD 1.9 2.6 6.8 4.9 4.6 3.4 very important phase, when rower’s mass Min 5.0 2.8 0.0 11.5 11.0 6.2 accumulating kinetic energy, but its duration is not Max 14.9 17.4 31.6 37.6 36.5 25.1 connected with better performance. D5 share has Corr. -0.11 0.06 0.35 -0.10 -0.28 0.04 negative correlation with the stroke rate, i.e. its The first two phases D1 (blade immersion) and duration decreases at higher rates. Good rowers D2 (initial rower’s acceleration) decrease their manage to maintain it longer that means better time proportionally with decreasing of the drive transfer of the kinetic energy to the boat. The D6 time at higher rates. Therefore, its shares in the (blade removal) phase share is nearly constant at drive time remain nearly constant. These phases different rates. It is shorter in good crews. are a bit shorter in sculling, which can be Contact Us: explained by the differences in the oar geometry ©2004 Dr. Valery Kleshnev [email protected] (m) +61(0)413 223 290 Appendix 1 to the Rowing Biomechanics Newsletter Volume 4 No 10 October 2004 Micro-phases of the stroke cycle. Men’s pair and Drew Ginn, Olympic Champions of Athens Games 2004. Stroke rate 36.5 str/min, video 25 fps, frame number – micro-phase.

1 - R2 2 - R2 3 - R2 4 - R2

5 - R2 6 - R2 7 - R3 8 - R3

9 - R3 10 - R3 11 - R3 12 - D1

13 - D1 14 - D1 15 - D2 16 - D2

17 – D3 18 - D3 19 – D4 20 - D4

21 - D4 22 - D4 23 - D4 24 – D4

25 - D5 26 - D5 27 - D5 28 - D5

29 - D5 30 - D5 31 - D6 32 - D6

33 - D6 34 - D6 35 - R1 36 - R1

37 - R1 38 - R1 39 - R1 40 - R1

41 - R1 42 - R2 43 - R2

Volume 4 No 11 Rowing Biomechanics Newsletter November 2004 Questions and Answers: 100% Legs Speed 1 (%/Max) 2 50% 9 Q: Wilson Reeberg, Technical Director of Rio Driv e de Janeiro Rowing Federation, Brazil asks: “In your 0% 0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100% newsletter from July 2001 (Vol 1 N 7), you wrote -50% "...one-leg squat, when you use the other leg for initial -100% Cycle (%) acceleration, looks much more similar to rowing than normal squat or jump-squat." Could you describe the 100% Trunk Speed 1 "one-leg squat using the other leg for initial (%/Max) 2 50% acceleration"? Is it like a jump-squat, but with one leg Driv e in front of the other? I would like to try it with our 0% athletes, but in the right way.” 0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100% -50% A: Use a block 5-10cm higher than the knee level of the -100% Cycle (%) athlete. Bend the working leg 100% Handle Force 1 slowly; do not accelerate too (%/Max) 80% 2 much during downward motion. 60% Driv e At the bottom point push the 40% ground sharply with other leg 20% and foot to change direction and 0% accelerate body upward. This 0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

moment simulates change the 6 Boat Acceleration (m/s2) direction of motion on water, when blade has no support yet. Then quickly shift the load onto 3 working leg and continue motion upward in 0 0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100% slightly decelerated manner. -3 -6 1 9 Q: This has been some interesting 2 Cycle (%) -9 Drive questions from Concept-II Training forum: “…Is the catch and the beginning of the drive initiated Now we will try to make the second question with the hands or the feet? Is there a catch that is clearer. We call “drive” when we drive or move distinguished from the beginning of the drive? something forward. This “something” can be the Where do I feel resistance first, hands or feet? handle, or the boat, or whole rowers-boat system. Hank” (http://concept2.ipbhost.com/index.php?showtopic=802) We define drive phase using the handle movement, A: If we understand the term “initiate” as because this is the easiest method. Following our movement of the legs or upper body, then definitions of the drive micro-phases (RBN emphasis at catch on the legs drive (stretcher push) 2004/1,2,10), D1 is clearly different from the or upper body work (handle pull) depends on subsequent micro-phases. The boat and the system rowing style. In RBN 2001/7 we defined accelerations are negative during D1, that means consecutive (or classical, legs first) and the rower do not move, “drive” the them forward. simultaneous (legs and trunk together) rowing The main tasks of D1 are changing direction of the styles. We can see very successful rowers in both rower’s movement relative to the boat and placing rowing styles: e.g., some Italian crews clearly the blade into the water. We call D1 “blade belong to the first one, a number of German rowers insertion”, but it also can be denotes by the term use the second style (see Appendix). “catch”. Below are parameters of two single scullers, Considering forces applied by rower, the which styles can be defined as consecutive (1) and stretcher force always increase earlier than the simultaneous (2). The first sculler has force peak handle force (e.g. RBN 2004/1, the first graph). On earlier and the boat acceleration is more even a stationary ergo this difference in timing is much during the drive. The second sculler has the force bigger (RBN 2003/10). Therefore, we can answer peak later and the boat acceleration is unstable. is: the resistance has to be felt on the feet first. However, we believe that the most efficient style is somewhere in between these two polar Contact Us: ones: legs initiate the drive and trunk starts ©2004 Dr. Valery Kleshnev working very soon after that. [email protected] (m) +61(0)413 223 290 Appendix 1 to the Rowing Biomechanics Newsletter Volume 4 No 11 November 2004 Examples of the simultaneous and consecutive rowing styles. Top: simultaneous style, M4x Germany, World Championship 2003, Milan, 1st place. Bottom: consecutive style, LM2x Italy, World Championship 2003, Milan, 1st place. Video 25 fps, drive phase only.

1 2 2

4 5 6

7 8 9

10 11 12

13 14 15

16 17 18

19 20 21

Volume 4 No 12 Rowing Biomechanics Newsletter December 2004 Dear rowing coaches, However, if we were to define “catch slip” rowers and all using the 30% criterion, then we would find that rowing people! the second crew increases force faster (14.2%) ☺ We wish you a compared to that of crew 1 (15.1%). All other Merry Christmas and features of the rowing technique of these two Happy New 2005 crews are well described in the referred Year! Newsletter. Fact. Did you know that… Ideas. What if… 9 …it is very important to increase force 9 …we try to find some new methods for up to 70% of its maximal value as quickly as training of the quickness of the force possible? We now use criterion 30% for application after catch. The first thing we should evaluation of the quickness of the force increase at take into account is dependence of the force the beginning of the drive. Traditionally, the arc application on the stroke rate. The figures below between the catch and the point where force show average force curve profiles at stroke rates increases up to this level, is called a “catch slip”. from 16 to 44 and the temporal structure of the We investigated all criterion from 10% to drive at 20 and 40s/m. More than 1500 samples 100% with 10% increments and found that were used to obtain these curves. criterion 70% had the highest correlation (r=-0.46) 100% Force (%) 16 with the duration of the micro-phase D3 (initial 20 80% 24 boat acceleration). This means: the faster you 28 increase force up to 70% of your maximum, the 60% 32 longer the duration of the D3 micro-phase. This 36 40 creates faster moving support for further 40% 44 acceleration of the rowers’ mass. 20% Current criterion 30% has the highest Driv e Time (%) correlation r=0.91 with duration of D1 “blade 0% insertion” micro-phase. This means: the faster you 0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100% increase force up to 30% of your maximum, the D3 sooner you will start acceleration of the system. 40s/m D1 D2 D4 D5 D6 A good illustration of this fact can be found in RBN 2004/2. On the figures below you can see the force curves of two crews together with timing of 20s/m D1 D2 D4 D5 D6 the micro-phases. It was postulated that crew 1 had D3 Drive Time (%) much more efficient technique and better 0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100% performance.. 8 It is obvious that the higher the stroke rate, the Force/Body 1 Mass (N/kg) earlier force application occurred. The biggest 6 2 70% changes in the profile happened at force levels 4 Catch Release from 70 to 90% of maximum. It required 14-16% 2 30% less relative time to achieve 70-90% of the max. force at 44spm than at 16spm. In comparison, 0 using the 30% criterion this difference is 8.1%, and Crew for the 100% criterion it is 8.1%. Correspondingly, 2 R2 R3 D1 D2 D5 D6 R1 R2 D1 and D2 are much shorter, but D3 and D4 are much longer at 40s/m. One great coach said that rowing at a high rate 1 R2 R3 D1 D3 D5 D6 R1 R2 differs from rowing at a low rate as much as D2 D4 running differs from walking. During long low rate Cycle Time (s) training we should remember that we will race at 0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 high rate. Always try to maintain fast force If we measure the time of the force increasing application and temporal structure of the drive as it using 70% criterion, then it was shorter in crew 1 was described above. (23.1% of the drive time) compared to crew 2 Contact Us: (30.5%). ©2004 Dr. Valery Kleshnev [email protected] (m) +61(0)413 223 290